Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1. MAIN RESULTS: There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».